Why has there not been another 9/11 or worse?

[Jim]

I think that the question that has not been asked here is: why did it never happen before? I mean' date=' we have had myriad terrorist groups operating around the globe since the 60s, and yet we never had a foreign terrorist action on American soil prior to 9/11 (yes, there were airplane hijackings - but those stopped abruptly with higher airline security measures). Europe, on the other hand, has been the victim of terrorist actions for a long time, and continues to be a target.

 

Since this is "scienceforums.net," I feel that it is necessary to point out that the non-recurrence of a completely unique event cannot be attributed to anything. At all.

 

And, since the NSA's actions are repugnant to a large percentage of Americans, I feel that the onus is on them to [u']prove[/u] that their actions are beneficial.

 

"At all" is a bit strong. 9/11 could have been terrorism's 4-Minute mile. Once a barrier is broken and the entire world is shown what is possible, that barrier is often repeatedly broken again and again.

 

Where something has been physically possible for a long time and then one person or group achieves that thing, it can become common place.

 

May I ask what the said ideology Al Qaeda is standing up for?

 

I suppose they would say they are doing God's will.

[Jim]

I know many will have a violent/negative reaction to what I am going to say but...I am actually entertaining the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were staged or taken into action to further American campaigns in the middle east. It gave justification (at least to Bush's administration) for USA to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. I will be careful to say however' date=' that it might have something to do with the rich oil reserves that are present in the said countries.

 

This angle may be farfetched but it may be possible nonetheless. It may also be that the Bush administration saw an opening and took advantage of the situation to further American interests in the Middle East.

 

So to answer the OP on this line of thinking, I think the reason why there hasn't been another 9/11 is because there hasn't been any need for it. The recipe for an all-out attack against terrorism has already been laid out. The US can now play Universal Police and attack any nation they think has WOMD. And they'll find justification for it.[/quote']

 

Seems as if you are not just saying this is possible but that it is probable as well, hence your statement that this line of thinking answers the OP. I enjoyed the movie Wag the Dog but it was just a movie.

 

The 8.5 years between actions on US soil is one reason that I don't find a need to ascribe the lack of followup to any new/special/specific action taken since the 9/11 attacks. Especially so considering Jim's point about how easy it should be to get into the US. Perhaps the logistics of non-native personnel, unfamiliar with the language and customs of the US, make it difficult enough to carry out attacks more frequently, given the normal law enforcement efficiencies and the capabilities of the terrorists.

 

These are all valid points; however, the motivation to do something, anything, would escalate when this group started taking very real hits. As far as their capabilities, it is possible that because of 9/11 we overestimate their abilities. It is certainly impossible today to imagine flight instructors not catching these guys, frankly, due to a bit of implicit profiling.

 

I also think that the NSA program may have played a factor. If Al Queda was not aware of the program, we may have learned important information. If Al Queda was aware and stopped using modern communication, that would have an impact. Every organization today knows the value of cell phones and email in coordinating initiatives and if we reduced Al Queda to 1940s communications, that was a success. Buttressing this point was Pangloss' story about Osama's missive taking 19 days to deliver. Hard to see it taking so long if they were using modern communication technology....

[Dak]

I doubt it's neccesary for al-quaida to bomb you again at this point in time.

 

America is still aware of the threat -- both the population and the govournment remember sept. 11th (meaning that the govournment has to spend in anti-terrorism stuff etc).

 

once you guys seem as if you're forgetting, i'd guess that you'll get another bomb to remind you they're still there, and are still a threat, although tbh bombing, for example, London achieved this effect in America -- you know they're still around, and you know it could have been you rather than London that was bombed.

 

So yeah, i dont see why al-quaida would be in any rush to bomb you again any time soon, tho i'd guess you'll be getting one again at some point within the next year or two.

[Jim]

Perhaps their primary goal was to create a rift between Saudis and the US' date=' expecting us (given the number of Saudi hijackers) to invade there instead of Iraq, with the majority of the Muslim world falling in line behind the Saudis.

 

They are extreemists, they expect other muslims to secretly feel the extreemists are right, but to not have the courage to accept it when things are comfortable. A war between the West and the Islamic world would be expected to "shock" the moderate muslims into seeing they had been seduced by western culture, and expose that they are really like.

 

What happened on 9/11, was the majority of the world, including the majority of muslims rallying around the US and feeling that terrorism is a global threat to everyone. We've erroded that support better than anyone could have imagined since then, but I am sure the memory of it is still strong in their minds, and they don't want to increase support against them.

 

If the US does decide to use tactical nukes in Iran though, I can't imagine that anyone would have sympathy for us if they nuked New York and DC. Whether the delivery system is a cruise missile or a suitcase, a nuke is a nuke.[/quote']

 

I seriously doubt we'd use nukes. Ever. I also think it is prudent for the US not to take that option off of the table while we negotiate.

 

I can't see Al Queda leaders believing we would invade the Saudis. It's one of those cases on hisotry where even if someone in a group objects to a course of action, they will be trapped by their prior rhetoric. You can't preach that the US is the great Satan for years and then object when the time has come to strike.

 

While we are speculating as to motives, it may have been something like the Wannsee conference when, at least according to the HBO rendition in the movie "Conspiracy," some participants may have had moral objections to the holocaust but they were trapped by the group dynamic which they had used to rise to power. How do you villify Jews for decades, if not centuries, as subhuman maniacle scum, and not "evacuate" them when a means occurs to some bright boy in the organization?

[Kirlian]

I think it is the same reason as why they haven't dropped an atom bomb since WW2, it only takes the once to terrify people

 

With 9/11 it was the only way to scare the American people into allowing their troops to go to war

[Jim]

A couple of interesting aspects of this thread:

 

1. Al Queda is often viewed as coldly rational in its calculations whereas Pres. Bush is often viewed as a bumbler. Al Queda only does what is "necessary;" whereas Bush takes irrational actions (e.g. infringing freedoms and taking huge political risks for no good reason).

 

2. Very few (okay, 1, to be exact) wants to consider the possibility that the NSA may have done some good in the war on terror.

[bascule]

Very few (okay, 1, to be exact) wants to consider the possibility that the NSA may have done some good in the war on terror.

 

I'll certainly consider the possibility, however I'm also left to wonder if the ends justify the means.

[Pangloss]

That's okay, so long as you continue to wonder if the ends justify the means when the White House changes hands from Republican to Democrat. (I think I know you well enough to know that you will, but I'm afraid that doesn't go for everyone around here.)

 

I agree with Jim's first point (in Post #32), and I think there are some very amusing, misguided, almost infantile statements in this thread. It's sad the lengths people have to go to to support their ideologies sometimes.

[Dak]

A couple of interesting aspects of this thread:

 

1. Al Queda is often viewed as coldly rational in its calculations whereas Pres. Bush is often viewed as a bumbler. Al Queda only does what is "necessary;" whereas Bush takes irrational actions (e.g. infringing freedoms and taking huge political risks for no good reason).

 

2. Very few (okay' date=' 1, to be exact) wants to consider the possibility that the NSA may have done some good in the war on terror.[/quote']

 

re: 1/ al queda are severely under-resorsed (concidering what they're trying to do), and so they have no option but to be very economical with their resorses and efforts, opting for only calculated high-yield risks and expenditures. so the assumption that they're callousely calculating is more-than-likely justified.

 

Ill leave it up to you to make your own assumptions as to why gee-dubl-yah is seen as bungling and irrational.

 

re: 2/ i kinda feel sorry for the NSA. i would be immensly surprised if defending a country against terrorism wasn't exeptionally tricky to do well.

[bascule]

That's okay, so long as you continue to wonder if the ends justify the means when the White House changes hands from Republican to Democrat.

 

As a libertarian (liberaltarian? heh), civil rights offenses from either of our totalitarian-leaning parties piss me off. I'm just as offended by the PC liberal kooks who run the town I'm living in trying to create an intolerance hotline as I am the domestic spying program.

[Dak]

I'm pretty sure al Qaeda had somewhat more ambitious objectives than seeing US federal outlays increase 15 percent faster over a five year period than they did in the preceding interval.

 

al qaeda have a set of aims, and, as i see it, there are three main ways in which they hope to use terrorism in which to achieve them.

 

1/ that the populance becomes so scared of attack that they put pressure on the govournment to aquiest to the terrorists demands in order to stop the attackes.

 

2/ that the populance puts pressure on the govournment to 'fix' the terrorist problem, leading to the possibility of a behind-the-scenes aquiesting to the terrorists demands in order to make the terrorist problem 'go away'.

 

3/ to put a strain on the country sufficient enough to make the polititians feel that refusing the terrorists demands is more trouble than it's worth.

 

Increasing spending would fall under no. 3.

[padren]

I seriously doubt we'd use nukes. Ever. I also think it is prudent for the US not to take that option off of the table while we negotiate.

If we talk as a nuclear power that reserves the right to use nukes over civilians in the middle east' date=' why do we think we deserve to be immune to the same?

I can't see Al Queda leaders believing we would invade the Saudis. It's one of those cases on hisotry where even if someone in a group objects to a course of action, they will be trapped by their prior rhetoric. You can't preach that the US is the great Satan for years and then object when the time has come to strike.

We referred to Russia as the Evil Empire for ages, and I really doubt it was an issue of runaway rhetoric...other than perhaps to some degree, they started to believe their own propaganda and believed it could help achieve their aims.

 

I don't think a direct attack on Saudi Arabia would be expected, but I do think a general middle eastern conflict leading to a souring of relations could have been a goal. I do think they wanted to provoke us into war, which they hoped more muslims would have rallied with them in.

 

 

The thing is that while we see them as Bond-eque villians, they actually believe they are on the side of justice and think they have a reputation to protect. They are happy to resort to terrorism and they are all criminals, but they honestly believe their actions are justified, and they probably believed more of the muslim world would have agreed with their justifications. They'd view it as their reputation was unjustly tarnished when that majority of muslims "failed to see how bad the westerners were and how much they deserved it" or whatever, and while their willingness to use such tactics would not pass, I am sure they considered the fallout of doing something on the scale of 9/11 again.

 

If they could just get a free attack on US soil, maybe they would take it, or at least some in the organization surely would, but what would they get out of it?

 

Last time it made the entire US rally around an incredibly unpopular and indictment-headed president and gave the world a reason to feel "understanding" while we tore through Afghanistan.

 

I do think they are horrible people, who would slit a child's throat just for being the child of an American. They should be hunted down.

 

But what goals would they really achieve?

 

While we are speculating as to motives' date=' it may have been something like the Wannsee conference when, at least according to the HBO rendition in the movie "Conspiracy," some participants may have had moral objections to the holocaust but they were trapped by the group dynamic which they had used to rise to power. How do you villify Jews for decades, if not centuries, as subhuman maniacle scum, and not "evacuate" them when a means occurs to some bright boy in the organization?

 

They would love it if the US fell off the map. They probably want to see the US fail and be invaded by islamic extreemists - sure - but when they are planning how to achieve any given result, I think their overall goal is to drive the US out of the middle east and run islamic regimes "their way" and grow as a world superpower.

They want relations between the US and Indonesia etc to sour, and to see the whole muslim world unite under their banner.

 

I think they believe that is the first step in destroying the US, and another attack may not be viewed as the best way to achieve that.

[Skye]

I think most jihadists feel that they are defending their culture and religion from outside Western influence. This started with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who have influenced many other terrorist groups. Zawahiri was the head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood before merging with bin Laden's al Qaeda. Al Qaeda itself grew out of the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. So overall I think the mindset is largely defensive and reactive. It shouldn't be too surprising that the majority of attacks are in Muslim countries, in essense trying to free or purify the land. These themes come up repeated in terrorist propaganda, and it's presumably what their members are responding to.

[sabbath]

I think it is the same reason as why they haven't dropped an atom bomb since WW2' date=' it only takes the once to terrify people

 

With 9/11 it was the only way to scare the American people into allowing their troops to go to war[/quote']

 

But isn't this a negative effect? It seems that the said war was more of a reaction to 9/11 than a response. What I'm saying is that the assault in Afghanistan and Iraq seems more of a reflex action rather than a well-thought out response to the terrorism problem. Though when I think about it I can't think of a reasonable/humane response to 9/11 against Al Qaeda.

 

As to the seemingly apparent lull in the 9/11 attacks, it may just be hypocritical. I can't imagine too, if anything more worse could be done. I mean right after 9/11 another tragedy followed in the form of Hurricane Katrina and then even now there are floods happening in the states by the coast.

[sabbath]

It's sad the lengths people have to go to to support their ideologies sometimes.

 

As people should. The only problem is when they get caught up in that ideology and see no other as reasonable or correct as that ideology and lose their rationality and become dogmatic, take for example Al Qaeda.

[Dak]

You haven't described aims here, but operations and effects. Objectives are desired endstates, and al Qaeda specifically wants one thing--an Islamic superstate enjoining all territories once ruled by Muslims or where significant numbers of Muslims exists. And to that end, I doubt they view this drop in the bucket increase in federal outlays as measurable progress towards that goal.

 

yes, but as i said, there are only three ways that i can think that terrorism would lead to al kaeda's aims being met. increased spending puts more pressure on the govournment to 'fix' the problem, and aslong as al-kaida can engeneer the situation so that the easyest way to make the problem go away is to meet their demands, increased pressure to fix the problem is roughly synonomouse with increased pressure to do what the terrorists want.

 

Im not saying that the increased spending is hugely significant on it's own, but increased spending + public disaproval of techniques used + public disaproval if those techniques don't actually prevent another attack + etc all add up to a significant problem for the US govournment. Not to the point where they'd give up and do what the terrorists wanted -- which, as far as the US is concerned, is to be left alone and not hindered by the US in the formation of this 'super-islam' -- but i can only assume that al kaeda, being unarguably a competent terrorist group, is aware of the pressure that they are putting on the US govournment and aware of the fact that 'pressure on the US govournment' is a means to achieve their aims.

 

my original point was that if this pressure starts to lessen, then that would be a reason for al kaida to bomb the US again. Untill it does, or untill the population appears to be forgetting the existance of the terrorists, i dont really see any pressing need for al-kaida to bomb the US again any time soon, exept, possibly, to make the populance pissed off with the govournment at failing to prevent another terrorist attack.

[Saryctos]

I can see little to no gain from actually attacking America again. If anything it would be counter productive to what the original effect has created over the years. An attack on the US gives us another reason for the ficle voter base to feel as though there is still something more to be done. Where as an attack on a different country for "helping the US" serves to only create seperaiton between the two nations if not politically, then morally. The agenda I'm seeing is to drive the US into isolationism all over again. Taking away the ability of the US to act alone due to distrust fro mthe world community could indeed be an extreme goal of these terrorist entities. By making it seem as though the US wants nothing more than to eliminate the Muslim countries coupled with the distruct of the world community for anything it does, would put the US in no position to even glance at the middle east the wrong way. Orchastrating a rise to power for the middle east in such a round about, yet direct way seems like something that could be taking place. Yet, politics is the most enigmatic game of all, so this is all but a poke in the dark.

 

for those who hate long winded posts, abridged*!

1) the US is in a position that terrorists like, so no bombings

2) by threatening other countries instead of US they stand to hurt the US without direct reprecussions*

3) orchastrastion of the middle east to power in the world community is their goal through the isolation of the US in the global community

[Jim]

I can see little to no gain from actually attacking America again. If anything it would be counter productive to what the original effect has created over the years. An attack on the US gives us another reason for the ficle voter base to feel as though there is still something more to be done. Where as an attack on a different country for "helping the US" serves to only create seperaiton between the two nations if not politically' date=' then morally. The agenda I'm seeing is to drive the US into isolationism all over again. Taking away the ability of the US to act alone due to distrust fro mthe world community could indeed be an extreme goal of these terrorist entities. By making it seem as though the US wants nothing more than to eliminate the Muslim countries coupled with the distruct of the world community for anything it does, would put the US in no position to even glance at the middle east the wrong way. Orchastrating a rise to power for the middle east in such a round about, yet direct way seems like something that could be taking place. Yet, politics is the most enigmatic game of all, so this is all but a poke in the dark.

 

for those who hate long winded posts, abridged*!

1) the US is in a position that terrorists like, so no bombings

2) by threatening other countries instead of US they stand to hurt the US without direct reprecussions*

3) orchastrastion of the middle east to power in the world community is their goal through the isolation of the US in the global community[/quote']

 

You seem to believe that the 9/11 attacks are based not on hate for America and its culture but on some rational plan that culimates in a grand strategic objective for Al Queda. Osama somehow knew Bush would toss Al Queda out of Afghanstan with complete world approval but then go on and take out Saddam and receive world censure.

 

Again, I think you give Osama and his gang a lot more credit than they deserve. These are not grand geopolitical thinkers of the day. They have a philosphy of hate and they gain converts to their side when they strike at an enemy, any enemy is fine, but the US is preferred.

 

If they could have attacked us, they would have attacked us.

[Mokele]

If they could have attacked us, they would have attacked us.

 

I think you assume too much reflexive hatred towards the US on their part.

 

The origin of the problems in the Middle East isn't the US, it's Europe. It was European powers who took over most of the middle east and divided it up into countries with little or no regard for existing tribal and cultural boundaries, setting things up for endless hostilities. Since then, the era of heady European imperialism has vanished, and the US has become the new big western power, but from their point of view, it's all still Western society.

 

----------------

 

A more general theme I see from you in this thread is an attempt to use this 'dry spell' (whether it's real or illusory) as evidence of the efficacy of some of the Bush administration's methods.

 

First and foremost, that's precisely the wrong way to examine the question; you should research the situation and causes *first*, then determine if the administration's actions have had a noticable effect.

 

Second, it's impossible. In addition to the fact that none of us know all the details (as some are surely classified), there's a myriad of additional possible factors, many of which have been elucidated in this thread. Trying to figure out what is responsible for their lack of major US attacks is like trying to figure out which raindrop caused the flood.

 

Third, as bascule pointed out, even if such a proof could be shown, the ends do not necessarily justify the means.

 

Personally, I think the whole thing's pointless; the only people who could actually have a grasp of the factors governing al-Quaida's activity are those who have extensive access to classified information on the topic. And I'd lay good money that even if they did talk about it, the first words out of their mouth would be "Well, it's a combination of a lot of different things..."

 

Mokele

[Jim]

I think you assume too much reflexive hatred towards the US on their part.

 

By "their" you are referring to Al Qaeda? My opinion is based on what they did, what they have said and reading from Bernard Lewis on the subject. Google some of Lewis' article and you will see the historic and cultural context in which Osama views the United States. It may be more complex of a feeling than "hate" but it is, also, a very real and dangerous feeling which would rejoice in US suffering.

 

 

The origin of the problems in the Middle East isn't the US, it's Europe. It was European powers who took over most of the middle east and divided it up into countries with little or no regard for existing tribal and cultural boundaries, setting things up for endless hostilities. Since then, the era of heady European imperialism has vanished, and the US has become the new big western power, but from their point of view, it's all still Western society.

 

For a much more complex and accurate view of the causes of these problems, please see this article.

 

A more general theme I see from you in this thread is an attempt to use this 'dry spell' (whether it's real or illusory) as evidence of the efficacy of some of the Bush administration's methods.

 

I'm not attempting to "use" Al Qaeda's "dry spell." I think you will see that most of my posts show that I am asking questions on this point, not drawing conclusions. I've admitted, for example, that the problem may relate in part to logistical difficulties.

 

Rather than commenting on my asking this question, maybe we should consider why the question hardly ever is asked? If you took a poll anytime from 9/11/01-12/31/01, I suspect most of the respondents would say we would be hit again sometime before 12/31/06. This Administration is under such a drum beat of criticism and bad news and the MSM has done a number on them to such a degree that I think we have a serious case of mindless groupthink in this country. To even raise an obvious positive and wonder if perhaps it might have something, anything, to do with administration policies, is something of a faux pas.

 

I am something of a contrarian - when Bush was riding high post 9/11 he made me nervous as hell. Now that he can seemingly do no wrong, the people who make me nervous are those (not talking about you here) that cannot imagine that he does anything right. The truth is clearly some complex terrain in the middle of these extremes.

 

First and foremost, that's precisely the wrong way to examine the question; you should research the situation and causes *first*, then determine if the administration's actions have had a noticable effect.

 

 

It is not the "wrong way." Reasoning from facts to general principles is inductive reasoning.

 

Second, it's impossible. In addition to the fact that none of us know all the details (as some are surely classified), there's a myriad of additional possible factors, many of which have been elucidated in this thread. Trying to figure out what is responsible for their lack of major US attacks is like trying to figure out which raindrop caused the flood.

 

You prove too much. We all understand that none of these posts are based on classified information. If you accept this line of reasoning, we can't comment on 9/10ths of the topics we debate here.

 

You also contradict yourself. I thought the "right way" to analyze was to "research the situation and causes *first*, then determine if the administration's actions have had a noticeable effect." Now you are saying that the situation is classified and just too complex to analyze.

 

Well, maybe, but we live in a democracy and our opinions and conclusions do matter so I think I'll make the effort anyway.

 

 

Third, as bascule pointed out, even if such a proof could be shown, the ends do not necessarily justify the means.

 

This is true as far as it goes. However, the "theme" I'm getting from your post is that you really do not want to consider the possibility that Bush's actions could have had a positive effect. We've argued the NSA program elsewhere and I was not wanting to reopen that debate. Suffice it to say that I believe there is a good faith argument that these "means" are legal.

 

Personally, I think the whole thing's pointless; the only people who could actually have a grasp of the factors governing al-Quaida's activity are those who have extensive access to classified information on the topic. And I'd lay good money that even if they did talk about it, the first words out of their mouth would be "Well, it's a combination of a lot of different things..."

 

If it's pointless, why are you taking such effort to post? Your position is more deferential to the government than mine - they have all of the facts so we mere citizens can't think about this intelligently.

 

I do agree with the last sentence of your post and refer you to the B. Lewis article for a flavor of those complexities; however, the end result is still an Al Qaeda that would rejoice in US losses of life.

[Skye]

They wouldn't call themselves mujahadeen if that were the case. There is little if any evidence that jihadism is rooted in familial norms and pressures. Islamic terrorism, like the pan-Arabist and pro-Palestinian movement before it, started as and continues to be a rich college kid's game.

They could well call themselves mujahideen since the word is putty in their hands anyway. There's rich kids and poor kids. The people in control have largely been the rich kids, surprising approximately no-one.

[pcs]

I never even went to prom. Total waste of time and money. Plus I refuse to wear a tux for anything less than my wedding.

 

That, and you're a total assplunger.

 

Quite simple really: you'd have to be a total moron not to understand the distinction between freedom of expression (to prefer to wear clothing that is refered to as feminine) and a desire to supress other people's rights (to breathe, in some cases). Unless that is you are somehow likening the support of wish of a man to wear a dress to to supporting someone who denies that several million people of many cultures, creeds, sexual preferences etc were slaughtered for their beliefs and a wish to promote racial hatred.

 

So would I also be a total moron if to liken a friggin' transvestite to an African American in the Jim Crow South?

 

You appear to be confusing 'decent foks' with kneejerk tossers who shouldn't be allowed to procreate or vote.

 

No, I'm pretty sure Moleke sides with the trannies.

 

An eyesore? Why, because he wore a dress?

 

Yes. Just as if he'd come to prom covered in feces.

 

I rather hope I don't live in your country whereby it is necessary to consider that offensive in order to be considered decent.

 

Uh, it's kind of a big deal. Can you say "taboo?"

 

Ok, you might not be able to empathize, but no one is asking you to do so. But that does not preclude you from understanding and accepting.

 

No, I'm well with in my rights not to understand and reject accordingly. And somehow I think I'll sleep at night despite knowing that transgender activists disapprove.

[padren]

I know I've been very skeptical in this thread as to how much the Bush Administration's successes has prevented another attack in the US on the scale of 9/11.

 

I also understand its a hard thing to evalute, as we can only see either A) an attack happens, and we blame Bush for failing or B) no attack happens, and we are not clear on the reason.

 

I will ask this though:

 

What specifically has Bush done that would that can be viewed as detering such an attack?

 

I agree strongly, that action in Afghanistan has cut down their ability to train and launch terrorists, which has been the result of Bush's response.

 

I am also worried though, that the campaign in Afghanistan has not been nearly as successful as we would like. They are producing heroine in large amounts, we do not know how many warlords may have back end deals with terrorist members, we don't know how many of their leutenents may have back end deals - and we really don't have full control of that country either.

 

I do think it has helped, but I am not sure how much and whether this can be considered a fatal blow, or simply a campaign that has caused them to change their methods to remain hidden. Whether that has prevented attacks or not...I am still skeptical.

 

Secondarily, the campaign in Iraq probably has not benefited the war on terror. It put an end to one dictator's capacity to potentially aid terrorist acts, but I don't think that campaign on the whole has hurt al quada's ability to attack us.

 

So its not unlike the question of how much Bill Clinton helped the economy: just because we experience a rebound when he's the sitting president, doesn't prove the connection, so what I am mostly curious about is how we can connect a lack of attacks with actions we take to prevent them.

[Jim]

I know I've been very skeptical in this thread as to how much the Bush Administration's successes has prevented another attack in the US on the scale of 9/11.

 

I also understand its a hard thing to evalute' date=' as we can only see either A) an attack happens, and we blame Bush for failing or B) no attack happens, and we are not clear on the reason.

 

I will ask this though:

 

What specifically has Bush done that would that can be viewed as detering such an attack?

 

I agree strongly, that action in Afghanistan has cut down their ability to train and launch terrorists, which has been the result of Bush's response.

 

I am also worried though, that the campaign in Afghanistan has not been nearly as successful as we would like. They are producing heroine in large amounts, we do not know how many warlords may have back end deals with terrorist members, we don't know how many of their leutenents may have back end deals - and we really don't have full control of that country either.

 

I do think it has helped, but I am not sure how much and whether this can be considered a fatal blow, or simply a campaign that has caused them to change their methods to remain hidden. Whether that has prevented attacks or not...I am still skeptical.

 

Secondarily, the campaign in Iraq probably has not benefited the war on terror. It put an end to one dictator's capacity to potentially aid terrorist acts, but I don't think that campaign on the whole has hurt al quada's ability to attack us.

 

So its not unlike the question of how much Bill Clinton helped the economy: just because we experience a rebound when he's the sitting president, doesn't prove the connection, so what I am mostly curious about is how we can connect a lack of attacks with actions we take to prevent them.[/quote']

 

It's like with the offensive line in football (the real kind you don't play primarily with your feet ). The only time most fans notice you is when the quarterback gets sacked. If the NSA program has yielded successes, in the ideal world, we would never know.

 

FWIW, after this thread developed, I came to agree that without WMDs it may be hard logistically to mount an attack "worse" than 9/11. To attack a national symbol hopefully is not nearly as likely.

 

However, my concern is how easy it would seemingly be to go after softer targets given the porosity of our borders. Such attacks could change the country every bit as much as did 9/11. Ten men with automatic weapons could occupy 30 story bank building in the heartland and take a thousand people hostage. Football games, you name it, it's vulnerable.

 

There seem to be three possibilities: (i) our enemies are eschewing such targets because (a) they do not want to attack us, (b) they do not believe these targets are worth the effort or © they lack the imagination to conceive the attacks OR (ii) we have deprived our enemies of the ability to get to Mexico and to penetrate the border (i.e., a combination of disrupting financial resources, penetration of their communications, deterring them from using modern communications, old fashioned sleuthing, etc. has worked) OR (iii) deterrence (i.e. they fear our response to renewed terrorism).

 

It could be a combination of these factors. Maybe the the terrorists have reduced capabilities AND fear the response to their continued effectiveness AND, given this reduced effectiveness and fear of response, do not want to risk action on what they consider to be less valued targets.

 

How can we know? I'm just not certain why it should be assumed that the US reactions have not yielded some successes particularly since we have been not been attacked for five years.

[Jim]

Perhaps, here is a partial answer to the question.

 

The CIA has been monitoring millions of international bank transactions since the 9/11 attacks, several newspapers reported Friday.

 

Stuart Levey, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Department of Treasury, explains the need for the program.

 

I recommend listening to this interview with Levey. Now that the NYTs has elected to expose this program, like Levey, I wonder how useful the program will be in the future.

 

Here's Cheney's take on the issue which I think is dead on target.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1151294400&en=38be11fa572aa9ca&ei=5087%0A

Viewed by the Bush administration as a vital tool, the program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia, the officials said.

 

Good job, NYTs. Well done, indeed.